The Supreme Court said it was an individual right – so that is that. It also fits in nicely with most of the rest of the amendments being individual. But yes – it is possible that sometime in the future a different Supreme Court could overturn the individual right ruling and rule it is only a militia right. But that is very unlikely in my opinion. But hey – I might turn out to be wrong in the future.

Yes – some regulations will be found reasonable – because they do not infringe the right to keep and bear. For example, getting rid of the gun show loophole doesn’t stop people from keeping and bearing. Registration doesn’t stop people from keeping and bearing. Banning handguns inside an entire city or state does. Ditto for rifles or shotguns. Banning handguns in a school or posted private building does not (but cops get to carry in schools). I am actually a bit doubtful that banning guns in government buildings will fly – but that hasn’t been challenged yet.

As for your movement argument – that also applies to speech. Your speech could be taken away and you would not be confined. But since speech is a fundamental individual right I don’t see such an interpretation coming anytime soon. Since the right to keep and bear is also a fundamental individual right you cannot take it away without giving the person affected the right to defend themselves in court. So the ex parte red law provisions will no doubt be struck down. Way to broad and vague to pass strict scrutiny. That is just one person’s opinion.

But sure – if you can prove in court, after the defendant has a chance to defend – that the person is likely to use the weapon in an attack, say on a school or business or just people in general – yes you can take away their weapons. You would probably be able to put them in jail – because even the planning to do something like that is illegal. They might even be found crazy and committed.

So in the meantime, people who object to the current version of the 2nd amendment should try to change it, rather than pass a lot of laws which are clearly unconstitutional on the current understanding of the 2nd amendment. But that is just my opinion. It will be a very very difficult uphill fight and I wish good luck to those who try to change the 2nd amendment.

It doesn’t specify that there may be no regulations, either. This is one of those concepts of freedom that can be dependent on the makeup of the courts to define.

Also, as a note, there is a key difference between confining a person and taking a weapon from them. My freedom of movement is not impeded by my lack of guns. It doesn’t confine me. It is perfectly reasonable to restrict the ability to own a gun if a person has demonstrated that they have indicated through words or actions that they will likely use the weapon in an aggressive, rather than defensive, manner.

The 2nd Amendment is not, as you imply, the absolute right to own whatever weapon is available that fires bullets or shot through a barrel. It’s vague, and people have been arguing over its meaning since it was passed.

You said “The gun violence continues apace, and so do baseless arguments that any measure proposed to reduce the problem of gun violence (it will never be completely eliminated) is part of a “librul” plot to take everyone’s guns away.”

I thought you were talking about laws (any measure proposed). I have not seen anybody propose to change the 2nd amendment (yet). Can you point me to that proposal. All I see are people proposing laws which violate the current 2nd amendment – which seems counterproductive to me.

But if you are proposing changing the 2nd amendment as a proposed measure – that is great! That is the right way to move forward. What is your proposed 2nd amendment language?

It is going to be a tough battle for you and your team. Good luck to you!

The government cannot infringe the peoples right to keep and bear arms. If you want to change that you have to change the 2nd amendment. That is not logic free – but instead logical.

Why the hell do you think I wrote,

And still some persist in hiding behind a supposedly inviolable Second Amendment using logic free arguments.

?

Have amendments never been changed? Well you have proven my point with your block head, yet anticipated, response.

A big problem with Red Flag laws is they are ex parte and do not require any crime to be implemented – without a chance to defend yourself.

The 2nd amendment is a fundamental right. Try to imagine a hearing to take away your right to free speech – ex parte (without the right to defend yourself). Or taking away your right to go to church or practice your religion in some way. Or taking away your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. All without your knowledge or even the chance to defend yourself in court. That is what red flag laws do.

It is my opinion that you cannot take away a fundamental right, such as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th amendments without due process – which means it cannot be done ex parte and without the right to defend yourself in court.

Can you imagine trying to civilly commit a person because they are not competent – but without the right to defend yourself (ex parte)? That is a pretty good analogy to what red flag laws are trying to do – take away your freedom to defend yourself without due process and a chance to defend yourself in court.

I don’t think they are going to fly and ultimately I believe they will be found to only operate when the person could be found incompetent (i.e. they are so mentally ill they can be committed to a mental institution) or to have committed a crime with their threatening behavior (i.e. they can be put in jail anyway). Then you can take their guns away.

Of course that is just one person’s opinion. I am sure this line of caselaw will develop and there will be multiple supreme court cases on this issue in due course.

Red-flag laws are what I’m talking about — and so are you, throughout your comment. Red-flag laws operate on a case-by-case basis: someone (usually a family member) petitions for a court order temporarily taking the guns away. A judge has a hearing and either issues the order or doesn’t. In the first hypothetical case you mention, I imagine the judge might order the wife beater to stay away from where his wife lives but keep his gun. It’s hard to be definitive without knowing more.

I don’t see how red-flag laws even apply to your other two cases.

And you will see right wingers who spend more time in a fantasy world than reality making up asinine scenarios to “explain” why people with a history of domestic or other assault, or of making threats due to mental issues, or bring up the “what about all the good people with guns defending themselves” [exaggerating by implication how often that happens] in order to block any intelligent discussion on this issue. Every time you think modern conservatives can’t get any worse they prove you wrong.

You think it would be good to prevent people “whose behavior shows violence from buying or owning guns”. What does that mean to you – exactly? I am assuming you mean something like a wife beater. What if a wife beater is obeying the restraining order and keeping the proper distance from the wife – but lives in a terrible neighborhood where his life is threatened daily? Does he lose his right to self-defense because of the restaining order? I think this situation will be resolved in favor of the guy having a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms – but not in violation of a restraining order – but yes in all other situations. We will see.

What if I have had my arm broken by a guy wielding a bat and I use my handgun to shoot him in self-defense. No charges – the defense of self-defense found valid in my case. But I have shown violence (in self-defense). Do I lose my right to further self-defense? I don’t think so. So I think you need to narrow down your criteria – it is to broad.

As for red-flag laws – what about a teen who is depressed and prescribed a medication. When he turns 21 he wants a handgun for self-defense. Should he lose his right for self-defense because he sought mental health and was prescribed a drug? I don’t think so. A lot of red-flag laws seem overly broad to me. Again – we will see.

If laws didn’t make a difference, pro-gun people wouldn’t be arguing against proposed gun regulation, or arguing for better enforcement of existing laws.*

Yes, people killed with a bomb, a knife or a baseball bat are just as dead. But it’s a fact that most mass killings in the U.S. are done with guns — and specifically with AR-15-type rifles. The reason is that such weapons make it easy to kill multiple people quickly from a distance.

Therefore, a good interim step would be to prevent people whose behavior shows violence from buying or owning guns. This would not affect the great majority of gun owners; they handle their guns responsibly. But the rabidly pro-gun faction won’t buy that.

* The rabidly pro-gun faction objects to all preventive measures, like red-flag laws. But they always want more enforcement of punitive laws. What’s wrong with this position? Punitive laws won’t bring the victims back to life; preventive laws will keep some of them alive.

The gun violence continues apace, and so do baseless arguments that any measure proposed to reduce the problem of gun violence (it will never be completely eliminated) is part of a “librul” plot to take everyone’s guns away.

I’m still seeing such arguments in comments on Washington Post articles. Just yesterday someone posted links to two pro-gun sites. They both looked reasonable to me, but one of them had a blog list that included many suspect sites. One was “The View from North Central Idaho.” Its introduction includes the patently false statement that “They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.” “They” meaning people advocating gun control, whom the blogger calls “our enemies.”

It is this kind of lying that, if it becomes prevalent, will doom the Second Amendment.